[SNIP]These platforms are key to modern day discourse, they are the stewards of free speech and I think they have the moral obligation to oblige. As these are key to modern day discourse the silencing of these people (no matter how toxic), gives them unprecedented leverage over discourse.

Bullshit.

Care to elaborate on your bullshit sir?

Wasn't his bullshit.

I think you missed the point. The bullshit comment was the true bullshit. Get it now?

Are you a Trump supporter? You seem to fit the profile.

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should tread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

I think you missed the point. The bullshit comment was the true bullshit. Get it now?

Are you a Trump supporter? You seem to fit the profile.

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should thread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should tread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Compared to traditional (physical) markets, there are considerably fewer barriers to compete with, say, Twitter. In fact that are quite a few competing services (Gab, Mastodon), it's just that nobody wants to use them. You could even say something, like, the market has spoken?

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

Pretty much every time I've seen "Ars is an echo chamber," the only echoing around was coming from that poster's skull. Which explains the "big == monopoly" fallacy, and the "silencing free speech" fantasy...

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should tread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Size alone isn't what makes a platform a monopoly. Size and lack of competition, or anticompetitive practices, are. There's plenty of competition for social networking. There's even more competition for just having a place to put your garbage on the Internet, like having your own private website that isn't beholden to a social network's Terms of Service and End-User License Agreement. And oh, look, trash captain Jones already has his own personal website that nobody is kicking him off of. His free speech is completely unimpeded and he isn't being silenced.

Even though I'm sure several other competent, level-headed regulars have already said the exact same things already, I'm vainly hoping that someone saying it once more will make it stick. At the very least you absolutely don't have any valid excuse for repeating the lie that Jones is being silenced or his free speech is being threatened.

Also, thanks for being another example for me to add to my hypothesis that everyone like you who comes in here calling the Ars community an echo chamber is just protesting the Ars community's failure to conform to your echo chamber. Handy tip: Just because a lot of people disagree with you doesn't mean they all agree with each other. It often means you're wrong. Stop blaming it on an imaginary echo chamber; put some of the energy you're wasting on that foolishness into understanding why the things you're saying are wrong.

[SNIP]These platforms are key to modern day discourse, they are the stewards of free speech and I think they have the moral obligation to oblige. As these are key to modern day discourse the silencing of these people (no matter how toxic), gives them unprecedented leverage over discourse.

Bullshit.

Care to elaborate on your bullshit sir?

Wasn't his bullshit.

I think you missed the point. The bullshit comment was the true bullshit. Get it now?

Not his job to explain other people's bullshit.

Get it now?

I feel like we need to take a page from THavoc's playbook, and see if we can get some bisonshit into this. There's way too much bullshit.

Also, thanks for being another example for me to add to my hypothesis that everyone like you who comes in here calling the Ars community an echo chamber is just protesting the Ars community's failure to conform to your echo chamber.

Zero engagement with his actual point.

Use of collectivist, tribalistic language like "everyone like you".

Mass downvotes.

Please, tell me more about how Ars isn't an echo chamber. If this is your idea of healthy and diverse discussion, I'd hate to see what you actually think an echo chamber is.

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Quote:

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should thread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Quote:

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

Defense, really? I'm commenting on the fact that Trump labelling and bashing is a very Ars (no pun intended) thing to do here. If you're not against Trump, you must be with him. "You fit the profile", etc. Think of down voting as silencing, or in your airtime frame of reference, a 3 am air time.

This is certainly an echo chamber though. About as nuanced as CNN and FOX in their bias.

Also, thanks for being another example for me to add to my hypothesis that everyone like you who comes in here calling the Ars community an echo chamber is just protesting the Ars community's failure to conform to your echo chamber.

Zero engagement with his actual point.

Use of collectivist, tribalistic language like "everyone like you".

Mass downvotes.

Please, tell me more about how Ars isn't an echo chamber. If this is your idea of healthy and diverse discussion, I'd hate to see what you actually think an echo chamber is.

So with onerous rules like the one below, are you willing to state that Infowars is just an echo chamber?

If you violate these rules, your posts and/or user name will be deleted.Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe.

Also, thanks for being another example for me to add to my hypothesis that everyone like you who comes in here calling the Ars community an echo chamber is just protesting the Ars community's failure to conform to your echo chamber.

Zero engagement with his actual point.

Use of collectivist, tribalistic language like "everyone like you".

Mass downvotes.

Please, tell me more about how Ars isn't an echo chamber.

Hey, you know that the "itdraugr wrote" part of the quote has a link to my full comment, right? So everyone can very clearly see that you clipped out the parts of my comment that directly engaged with Blaine's stupid bullshit? And so everyone can clearly see that you're straight-up lying right now?

There's a very clear pattern regarding which posters are the ones throwing around "echo chamber" accusations. When I say "everyone like you" I'm referring to the historical trend of people shitting on the Ars community because the Ars community isn't uncritically accepting those people's claims and conforming to those posters' tribalistic mentality.

Again, just because a lot of people disagree with you doesn't mean their part of some hive-mind collective. It often just means you're saying stupid shit.

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Quote:

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should thread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Quote:

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

If you're not against Trump, you must be with him.

I will echo Bob Woodward: He is our President. He leads our nation. I really, really would prefer him to be successful.

Instead, he points at people and says vote for me or I'll be impeached, without realizing if he wasn't a corrupt seven-year-old jackanapes with the ethics of a loan shark, that threat wouldn't be on the table.

I still think this has been his goal all along. He can still post his videos elsewhere, and I'm sure his followers know exactly how to keep tabs of his latest rants. But now he's a martyr of those godless liberal Silicon Valley billionaires, trying to oppress The Truth.

Not that I think it was the wrong thing to do at all. He's just going to now jump up and down about how they wouldn't be censoring him if they didn't fear what he was saying, with his followers bobbing their heads up and down in agreement.

No it wasn't. He is already a hero to his followers, nothing to gain there. The downside however is huge - he is losing his ability to gain new followers. He might be able to galvanize his followers for a while, but that will fade in a few months.

Also, thanks for being another example for me to add to my hypothesis that everyone like you who comes in here calling the Ars community an echo chamber is just protesting the Ars community's failure to conform to your echo chamber.

Zero engagement with his actual point.

Use of collectivist, tribalistic language like "everyone like you".

Mass downvotes.

Please, tell me more about how Ars isn't an echo chamber. If this is your idea of healthy and diverse discussion, I'd hate to see what you actually think an echo chamber is.

I can repeat the relevant paragraph for you:

Quote:

Handy tip: Just because a lot of people disagree with you doesn't mean they all agree with each other. It often means you're wrong. Stop blaming it on an imaginary echo chamber; put some of the energy you're wasting on that foolishness into understanding why the things you're saying are wrong.

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Quote:

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should thread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Quote:

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

Defense, really? I'm commenting on the fact that Trump labelling and bashing is a very Ars (no pun intended) thing to do here. If you're not against Trump, you must be with him. "You fit the profile", etc. Think of down voting as silencing, or in your airtime frame of reference, a 3 am air time.

This is certainly an echo chamber though. About as nuanced as CNN and FOX in their bias.

You've noticed that too? I've been called everything in the book by the small minded on here. This place is full of blinding hatred. Now watch the excuses, name calling and down votes flow...it's actually quite amusing lol.

You've noticed that too? I've been called everything in the book by the small minded on here. This place is full of blinding hatred. Now watch the excuses, name calling and down votes flow...it's actually quite amusing lol.

gotta love complaining about people calling him names while simultaneously calling people names.

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Quote:

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should thread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Quote:

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

Defense, really? I'm commenting on the fact that Trump labelling and bashing is a very Ars (no pun intended) thing to do here. If you're not against Trump, you must be with him. "You fit the profile", etc. Think of down voting as silencing, or in your airtime frame of reference, a 3 am air time.

This is certainly an echo chamber though. About as nuanced as CNN and FOX in their bias.

The comment section is a come as you are party. You're here, right?

The editorial approach may or may not have a bias, but to call it out, you probably should cite examples and provide credible refutation. Otherwise, you are Yet Another Idiot yelling FAKE NEWS.

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Quote:

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should thread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Quote:

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

Defense, really? I'm commenting on the fact that Trump labelling and bashing is a very Ars (no pun intended) thing to do here. If you're not against Trump, you must be with him. "You fit the profile", etc. Think of down voting as silencing, or in your airtime frame of reference, a 3 am air time.

This is certainly an echo chamber though. About as nuanced as CNN and FOX in their bias.

You've noticed that too? I've been called everything in the book by the small minded on here. This place is full of blinding hatred. Now watch the excuses, name calling and down votes flow...it's actually quite amusing lol.

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Quote:

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should thread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Quote:

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

Defense, really? I'm commenting on the fact that Trump labelling and bashing is a very Ars (no pun intended) thing to do here. If you're not against Trump, you must be with him. "You fit the profile", etc. Think of down voting as silencing, or in your airtime frame of reference, a 3 am air time.

This is certainly an echo chamber though. About as nuanced as CNN and FOX in their bias.

If this site were an echo chamber, threads like this wouldn't go on for 12 pages of argument with people like you. When people like Alex Jones get suspensions from social media because they explicitly called for people to take criminal action against the media, we wouldn't have to spend page after page arguing with the same assholes about how the ban was unjust or how it was politically motivated, stuffed with "what-abouts" and outright lies. In an echo chamber, those people would not be allowed to continue posting.

Does the site have a bias? Yes. Does its audience have a political slant? Yes. But confusing that for an echo chamber is something people typically only do when they're accustomed to echo chambers of their own - people who are used to communities where nobody gets to challenge their ideas or present arguments that undermine their worldview in any meaningful way, people who are so unaccustomed to seeing actual arguments that they think that having a substantial number of people disagree with them must necessarily be an echo chamber.

As for the "you must be a Trump supporter thing"... well, two points there. First, those people tend to be a minority. Second, when you spout and/or support talking points that are almost exclusively popular among Trump's base, [i]you should expect people to make that assumption. I don't mean talking points like "Twitter is too big". I mean talking points like "Twitter is too big because they are suppressing political views", where the "political views" involved are intense bigotry and the encouragement of violence.

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Quote:

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should thread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Quote:

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

Defense, really? I'm commenting on the fact that Trump labelling and bashing is a very Ars (no pun intended) thing to do here. If you're not against Trump, you must be with him. "You fit the profile", etc. Think of down voting as silencing, or in your airtime frame of reference, a 3 am air time.

This is certainly an echo chamber though. About as nuanced as CNN and FOX in their bias.

You've noticed that too? I've been called everything in the book by the small minded on here. This place is full of blinding hatred. Now watch the excuses, name calling and down votes flow...it's actually quite amusing lol.

Second, the fact that you're upset about someone who actively and explicitly promoted criminal action against the media and other people who he didn't like because he was banned, rather than because he wasn't banned sooner, says volumes about you as a person. You are a walking disgrace.

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Quote:

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should thread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Quote:

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

Defense, really? I'm commenting on the fact that Trump labelling and bashing is a very Ars (no pun intended) thing to do here. If you're not against Trump, you must be with him. "You fit the profile", etc. Think of down voting as silencing, or in your airtime frame of reference, a 3 am air time.

This is certainly an echo chamber though. About as nuanced as CNN and FOX in their bias.

If this site were an echo chamber, threads like this wouldn't go on for 12 pages of argument with people like you.

Technically, some of those pages include filler from paper-airplane tossers like me. Having said that:

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Quote:

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should thread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Quote:

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

Defense, really? I'm commenting on the fact that Trump labelling and bashing is a very Ars (no pun intended) thing to do here. If you're not against Trump, you must be with him. "You fit the profile", etc. Think of down voting as silencing, or in your airtime frame of reference, a 3 am air time.

This is certainly an echo chamber though. About as nuanced as CNN and FOX in their bias.

You've noticed that too? I've been called everything in the book by the small minded on here. This place is full of blinding hatred. Now watch the excuses, name calling and down votes flow...it's actually quite amusing lol.

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Quote:

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should thread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Quote:

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

Defense, really? I'm commenting on the fact that Trump labelling and bashing is a very Ars (no pun intended) thing to do here. If you're not against Trump, you must be with him. "You fit the profile", etc. Think of down voting as silencing, or in your airtime frame of reference, a 3 am air time.

This is certainly an echo chamber though. About as nuanced as CNN and FOX in their bias.

If this site were an echo chamber, threads like this wouldn't go on for 12 pages of argument with people like you.

Technically, some of those pages include filler from paper-airplane tossers like me. Having said that:

My name is graylshaped, and I approve of this post.

Sure, but we've had a whoooole lot of threads about Jones lately and a large amount of people are pretty damn tired of rehashing this BS, so airplane-tossing is a given at this point.

TheAnonymousOne's comment was bullshit. Who in their right fucking mind wants to make private corporations the "stewards of free speech"? I mean, besides Ajit Pai?

Quote:

Trump supporter? No, and I certainly did not vote for him. When a platform of discourse is large enough, your platform becomes a monopoly of influence and I think you should thread very carefully when it comes to silencing free speech. The only reason Trump is on Twitter still is because banning him would be bad for business.

But of course, as you all know, this is the Ars echo chamber, great technical commentary but lacking a little in political diversity.

Quote:

The ol' echo chamber defense. Odd how those wielding it never notice they get airtime, too.

Defense, really? I'm commenting on the fact that Trump labelling and bashing is a very Ars (no pun intended) thing to do here. If you're not against Trump, you must be with him. "You fit the profile", etc. Think of down voting as silencing, or in your airtime frame of reference, a 3 am air time.

This is certainly an echo chamber though. About as nuanced as CNN and FOX in their bias.

You've noticed that too? I've been called everything in the book by the small minded on here. This place is full of blinding hatred. Now watch the excuses, name calling and down votes flow...it's actually quite amusing lol.